10- Intergroup Interactions Flashcards
1- Interracial Interactions Can be Challenging
Participants went through a same-race or cross-race interaction for 10-15 minutes
Afterwards, participants completed a measure of ‘executive control’, the Stroop Task (saying color words without being influenced by the color of the font)
Finally, participants completed an IAT.
Participants who reported more implicit bias on the IAT had the most difficulty on the
Stroop Task following a cross-race interaction.
2- Role of Motivation to Control Prejudice
One strong predictor of the quality of intergroup interactions is one’s motivation to control prejudiced responses.
In 1998, Ashby Plant and Patricia Devine divided this idea into ‘internal motivation’ and ‘external motivation’.
Has now been used in more than 1500 papers, particularly within
the intergroup interactions literature.
Internal Motivation to Control Prejudice:
“I am personally motivated by my beliefs to be nonprejudiced toward Black people.
Because of my personal values, I believe that using stereotypes about Black people is wrong.
Being nonprejudiced toward Black people is important to my self-concept.”
External Motivation to Control Prejudice:
“Because of today’s politically correct standards, I try to appear nonprejudiced toward Black people.
I try to act nonprejudiced toward Black people because of pressure from others.
I try to hide any negative thoughts about Black people in order to avoid negative reactions from others.”
-White participants high in internal motivation are concerned about showing respect towards
Black interaction partners.
-White participants high in external motivation are more self-focused, concerned about not appearing prejudiced in the eyes of the Black interaction partner.
In one study, White participants first completed the internal and external motivation to control
prejudice scales a few weeks before coming into the laboratory. They were then led to believe that they would soon be having an interaction with another student. Participants then saw a ‘get to know you’ video made by the other student (who was always
Black). Afterwards, participants made their own ‘get to know you’ video (~ 5 minutes long).
External motivation to control prejudice was associated with:
- Concerns about appearing prejudiced “I am trying hard to avoid seeming prejudiced.”
- Self-focused behavioral intentions “I focused a lot on my own behaviors and actions”
Internal motivation to control prejudice was associated with:
- Concerns about being respectful “I want to show the person that I believe they are competent.”
- Partner-focused behavioral intentions “I tried to learn a lot about the person.”
- Actual respectful behavior in the video (evaluated by independent coders)
For example, whether the participant directly greeted the other person
3- Intergroup Contact
The Contact Hypothesis: Interpersonal contact between groups will improve intergroup relations.
Higher levels of intergroup contact have been previously associated with:
* Increased knowledge about outgroup
* Increased empathy with outgroup
* Reduced intergroup anxiety
* Reduced implicit & explicit prejudice
* Reduced intergroup threat
Optimal Conditions for Contact:
- Support of authorities: Authorities support friendly and egalitarian contact and
interactions between groups. - Equal status: Members of groups have similar social status within a situation.
* Status and Contact Study (Blanchard, Weigel, & Cook, 1975)
* White participants do a cooperative task with Black actor.
* Partner was then made to be equal or lower in status
(manipulated by level of competence on the task)
* Partners then succeeded or failed.
Main Point: Cooperation
backfires when a clear status
hierarchy exists - Common goals: Groups share a common goal
* (don’t have to be actively cooperating) - Cooperation: Groups work together to attain common goals.
* Athletics & Intergroup Contact (Brown et al., 2003)
* White college athletes were participants.
* “Contact” = % of non-White players in each sport.
* Individual vs. team sports
* Measured prejudice toward African Americans
Main Point: Least prejudice
with contact and cooperation. - Contact as individuals: Opportunities to know outgroup members as individuals in informal settings.
Contact as Public Policy
“Meet a Jew”
Initiating Contact:
People hesitate to initiate intergroup friendships because they…
1. Worry they won’t know how to act
2. Anticipate anxiety
3. Expect to have a more negative experience than reality suggests.
4. Worry about rejection
* White People: Black people will think they’re prejudiced
* Black People: White people hold negative stereotypes about their group
* Both assume the other isn’t interested
4- Other Forms of Contact
- Oftentimes, direct contact is not possible or simply avoided.
- Do indirect forms of contact reduce prejudice?
- Extended Contact
- Imagining Contact
- ‘Parasocial’ Contact
‘Extended’ Contact
Extended Contact: Having a friend with an outgroup friend
* Extended contact is also associated with lower prejudice.
Explanations:
* Reduces intergroup anxiety
“If Dave is friends with Muslims, then maybe it’s not that big of a deal”
* Changes perception of norms “It’s not that weird to be friends with Muslims”
* Cognitive consistency
“The friend of my friend must also be my…friend?”
Imagined Contact
* Does imagining contact reduce prejudice?
Yes!
‘Parasocial’ Contact
Parasocial Contact: Experiences with outgroup members via mass communication
* Parasocial contact also reduces prejudice.
Ex: movies like crazy rich asians, moonlight, celebrities like Beyoncé…
5- Other topics related to contact: negative contact, a downside to contact, long-term effects of contact
Negative intergroup contact: Negative experiences with outgroup members that results in increased prejudice
* Less common than positive contact, but more influential on prejudice when it does happen (Graf, Paolini, & Rubin, 2014)
Why might negative experiences with outgroup members be more
influential when it does happen?
Explanation: If you have a negative encounter with an outgroup member, you’re more likely to generalize to their entire outgroup
(compared to having a positive encounter)
A Downside to Contact
More recent studies in intergroup contact have revealed one potential
downside. For members of advantaged groups, greater intergroup contact is associated with higher support for social change.
For members of disadvantaged groups, greater intergroup contact is
associated with lower support for social change.
For members of disadvantaged groups, intergroup contact may then have a somewhat “pacifying” effect on working for social change
One recent study looked at this question across more than 12,000 participants in nearly 70 countries.
Support for social change was operationalized in a number of ways (willingness to sign an online petition, attend a demonstration, policies that may address inequality, etc.).
Also looked at effects in two domains:
1) Among members of ethnic majorities vs. minorities
2) Among cis-heterosexuals and LGBTIQ+ individuals
Results: higher support for social change among ethnic majorities and cis-het, lower support for social change among ethnic minorities and lgbtq people who had intergroup contact
One Way Forward
Hassler et al., 2019
In this analysis, the only outcome that was positively associated with intergroup
contact for both disadvantaged and advantaged group members was “willingness to work in solidarity”. Willingness to work in solidarity assessed the degree to which group members would form intergroup connections to bring about justice.
Among advantaged groups, willingness to work in solidarity might reflect a
recognition that social change is the responsibility of many in the larger society
as a whole, rather than a burden to be carried solely by members of disadvantaged groups.
Long-Term Effects of Contact
Looked at how troop placement in WWII in England is associated with racial attitudes.
Individuals in areas of the UK where more Black troops
were posted are more tolerant towards minorities 60 years after the last troops left. Effects must be at least partly due to “intergenerational
transmission” and the power of cultural norms.
Used outcomes like IAT scores, self-reported attitudes, and popularity of far-right political parties.
